Frivolous literary note

[dennis grace]

In response to my
>[...]
>> My problem with attributing character lines to authors is a writerly one.
>> Take Mark Twain or Alice Walker, for example.  Both of them have had
>> characters who make malicious use of the pejorative "nigger."  Now, do you
>> think either of them would appreciate seeing such a quote attributed to them
>> without the protective gauze of a character's voice?  I know I wouldn't want
>> my nastier characters' words attributed to me.  
>[...]
>

Joe Varo writes:

>Ahh...okay (again).  I see your point here.  But what about the author of
>something along the lines of _The_Turner_Diaries_, the book that got
>McVeigh and other nuts all worked up.  Can the author of that book also
>say "Hey, I didn't say that, my character did"?  Is it okay to incite to
>riot (or anything else, for that matter) as long as you do it via a work
>of fiction? Where and when does an author become responsible for what s/he
>writes?  Reminds me a bit of the de Man controversy from the late 80's --
>was he a nazi sympathizer or wasn't he?  Some of his writings seemed to
>indicate that he was, but many say that that was just what he wrote, not
>what he truly believed, or however you want to phrase it. 

Good question, but I don't buy such claims for non-fiction writing, Gabriel
Garcia Marquez's opinions notwithstanding.  As for deMan, his neo-nazism was
mostly present in early writings, and I for one can forgive people for
youthful stupidity.  If he continued to produce such drivel throughout his
life, perhaps he simply serves as another fine example that intelligent
poeple come to some pretty stupid conclusions--see f'r instance desCartes's
Meditations.  I mean, okay, the cogito ergo sum thing is absolutely
brilliant, but the way he proves the existence of god is just downright
dorky.  Sorry if this sounds tangential, but I don't think it is.  I believe
Paul deMan *could* (theoretically) have some brilliant critical ideas and
still be, nonetheless, a complete ethical/political dufus.  Of course, I
think deconstruction is a crock anyway, so maybe the late Paul d is a bad
example.  Still, you gotta admire Paul d's scam:  analyze the stuff that
isn't there (blindness, he called it).  It's total dreck, but it sounds
elegant and it gives the critic a LOT MORE to analyze. :^>

I don't know the Turner Diaries, but I do recall Ice-T's Copkiller.  I have
mixed feelings about it.  I believe it's possible to present such a
character in satire or study without intending to authorize it, but what do
we expect of the author in such situations?  I beleive Ice T new he was
recording a piece his gangbanger audience would jam to, but maybe not.  If
not, if his Copkiller is just a socially relevant characterization, why
shouldn't he publish it?  

On a less controversial level:  been there m'self.  I recently published a
short story in Aboriginal SF about a lawyer who tries to turn mistreatment
of androids (my androids, unlike Star Trek's Data, have al the sentience of
a toaster) into a cause celebre' in order to boost his own political career.
The story ends with his scam potentially working.  Have I suggested
unethical behavior as a route to political success?  I also TRIED to peddle
a story in which an old man managed to destroy the influence of a minor
Hitler-like orator at the end.  Algis Budrys of _Tomorrow_ refused to
publish it because he said publishing stories suggesting a hero can come
along and save a society from a Hitler-like demagogue is irresponsible.  I
dumped the story because I agree.  So if I write a story about a villain,
should he get his comeuppance or should he--as in Ice T's CD--continue to
thrive in his despicable profession. 

Still wondering why GR wasn't titled V-2

Je reste,

dgg

"We have found a witch.  May we burn her?"